Re: [frogs] chord-name-engraver plus capo - schemeing away ...

[Carl Sorensen <c_sorensen@xxxxxxx>]

On 8/29/10 1:43 PM, "Wols Lists" <antlists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  On 28/08/10 19:17, Neil Puttock wrote:
>> On 28 August 2010 19:02, Carl Sorensen <c_sorensen@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>> There's a work in process to rewrite the chord name function.  I think that
>>> the approach that Anthony is taking is correct.
>> Is it ever going to be finished?  It's been in process for about a
>> year unless I'm mistaken; you posted a patch on Rietveld from Thomas
>> earlier this year, but I haven't seen progress since.
>> 
>> I still think it's better to do this in scheme (and that doesn't mean
>> as a scheme engraver); even if we ever get to the stage where the
>> chord name infrastructure does get rewritten, it shouldn't prevent
>> other enhancements being made earlier, especially if they're
>> implemented in a modular fashion.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Neil
>> 
> I'm quite happy to do it Scheme, and thanks for all the stuff you've
> sent/pointed me at to look at. Only thing is, at the moment it's as
> clear to me as double-italian (As a german-speaker (my second language),
> double-dutch isn't too bad ... :-)
> 
> All being well, I'll start on the capo-indicating-engraver in Scheme
> tomorrow, so expect a flurry of "how on earth do I do this!" emails :-)

Why do you want to do this as a scheme engraver?  It seems to sit very
nicely as part of the ChordName engraver, which is already written.  Note
that Neil's comment above indicates that he doesn't mean *as a scheme
engraver*.

Other than as an academic exercise to write an engraver in Scheme, this
doesn't seem to me to be the best way to get the functionality you want.

Thanks,

Carl


---
----
Join the Frogs!